Skip to main content

Handling China "correctly"

However you view the country, it can't be ignored. China has already made an impact on the economies of many nations around the globe and will increasingly do so.

James Fallow spent 3 years as The Atlantic's resident correspondent in China. He was interviewed in Beijing by Anthony Anderton for a piece "Modern China: Handle with Care" in the new Sydney Ideas Quarterly [well worth accessing and reading incidentally!].

Anderton writes:

"Getting China right has never been more important for Australia. We are now acutely aware of China’s critical role in our economic prosperity. Yet there is considerable uncertainty about the rise of China and what this means for Australia and our region. How, for example, should we interpret and respond to China’s growing military and strategic influence in our region? What about Chinese ownership of our resource assets?

In debating these issues, China is often depicted in one-dimensional caricatures: China the boundless economic opportunity, China the brutal dictatorship, China the strategic threat, even China the saviour of the global financial crisis. Such images make headlines and fuel a lively public debate, but they also mask China’s diversity, complexity and contradictions.

One the most insightful commentators on contemporary China, The Atlantic’s James Fallows, suggests we need to accept the complexity and the contradictions inherent in the modern Chinese condition.

Fallows observes the tendency for simplistic explanations among Western observers. “People have to fit [China] into a very simple plot line. Either China is good and is helping us become rich, or China is bad and is destroying the world and an argument which says yes, both those things are true plus a thousand other things–that is a hard thing for people to want to take the time to absorb.”"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...